Gay Parents: 11 x more likely to molest and other "goodies"

[_palerobber]

Take my hypothetical study for example. What if I had performed a faulty study that said Mormons were more prone towards molestation. [...]

just to fill out this hypothetical a bit, it would be very easy to follow the Regnerus model and create such a study.

first, take a sample of children of non-mormon parents who were raised entirely within a stable, non-adoptive, two-parent household. this is your "control group".

next, you construct a "study group" of which less than 1% are people who were similarly raised, but with Mormon parents, and the remaining 99%+ is people from all manner of broken homes, who had one parent who at any point during the child's life attended even a single Mormon service.

done! ... i wonder which group will have worse outcomes?

[_lulu]

To do so, is a concession that we can gather meaningful evidence.

KKK sponsors study of African American IQ.

Its adding to the knowledge base.

[_Jaybear]

I take no lessons other than that the somebody has finally come up with a statistical study which says that children of gay parents are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents.

except that's not what the study says.

as i've already pointing out, the "study" could not possibly say that because it didn't even look at a sample of the "children of gay parents."

My thoughts exactly. What an incredibly dishonest statement.
They were not children of gay parents, they were, almost without exception, children of mismatched orientation parents.

Does anyone, other than LDS Bishops, and LDS apologists, doubt that such children are at a higher risk of "abuse or whatever" than children raised by gay parents.

The study tells us more about the intellectual honesty of people who cite the study, than it does about gay parenting skills.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/20/news/mn-28924

I wonder if Yahoo Bot would concur, and applaud this study?

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Yahoo Bot]

My thoughts exactly. What an incredibly dishonest statement.
They were not children of gay parents, they were, almost without exception, children of mismatched orientation parents.

Does anyone, other than LDS Bishops, and LDS apologists, doubt that such children are at a higher risk of "abuse or whatever" than children raised by gay parents.

The study tells us more about the intellectual honesty of people who cite the study, than it does about gay parenting skills.

It is amazing that you and others wish to thrash me with a study with which I disagree. I'm just going off the thread title.

[_Sammy Jankins]

It is amazing that you and others wish to thrash me with a study with which I disagree. I'm just going off the thread title.

A study which you "liked and applauded" and said it promoted "cogent discourse." A study that used bad research to target a demographic by stating they are more likely molest.
So unable to answer criticisms you play the persecution card. I'll take it as you conceding defeat.

[_Yahoo Bot]

It is amazing that you and others wish to thrash me with a study with which I disagree. I'm just going off the thread title.

A study which you "liked and applauded" and said it promoted "cogent discourse." A study that used bad research to target a demographic by stating they are more likely molest.
So unable to answer criticisms you play the persecution card. I'll take it as you conceding defeat.

Persecution card? Oh come on; don't be such a bozo. I know that you want somebody here to stand up for that report so that you can debate him or her; I'm not that guy.

The report itself is great because it tackles an issue that needed tackling. I just don't agree with it because I don't agree with reports of that nature. They are inherently suspect.

Cold fusion was an interesting prospect. I don't think it is possible but I applaud efforts to advance it.

[_Fence Sitter]

If I were arguing a case in front of a jury where the preponderance of factual evidence was against me, I would present flawed data that lent weight to my side, acknowledge the data had problems but back it up with anecdotal testimony of why it was okay to dismiss those flaws. Then I would pretend that any criticism of my flawed data was a personal attack on me and point to my own data to show how all data is bad. Maybe even throw in a catchy phrase or two.

"If the data does not fit, you must acquit."
"If you've seen one bad study you have seen them all."

[_Chap]

...
The report itself is great because it tackles an issue that needed tackling. ...

The point of calling a report 'great' when its methodology and conclusions are crap escapes me, unless the point of using that descriptor is to annoy those who read it and make them waste their time dialoging with the string-puller who uses it.

"Your defence of your client was great, counsellor, even though your logic was faulty, your citations of legal authorities obviously flawed, your witnesses transparently lying, and you had obviously misunderstood the charge. But you tackled something that needed tackling, since the man was entitled to a defense. So even though it was a crap defense from every professional point of view, it was great."

[_Sammy Jankins]

The point of calling a report 'great' when its methodology and conclusions are crap escapes me, unless the point of using that descriptor is to annoy those who read it and make them waste their time dialoging with the string-puller who uses it.

So I was being trolled? Fair enough. Lesson learned. Yahoo bot is a troll or perhaps simply his participation is indishgishable from a troll.
Either way he's a waste of time.